If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

This one is commonly cited, but almost always without the surrounding context - he was talking about using tear gas, not a lethal agent. The full quote is:

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Yeah and a Swastika was an Indian suncross, you gonna reclaim that as well?

I have no need to, so no.

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

This one is commonly cited, but almost always without the surrounding context - he was talking about using tear gas, not a lethal agent. The full quote is:

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Oh that's fine then!

Originally Posted by Paul Mason

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

This one is commonly cited, but almost always without the surrounding context - he was talking about using tear gas, not a lethal agent. The full quote is:

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Oh that's fine then!

His intent appears to be "use non-lethal force to defeat moral, instead of lethal force to end life" as a mechanic to win Wars.

More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.

Posts

4,152

Originally Posted by Keckers

Originally Posted by Tafkat

Originally Posted by Rodj Blake

Here's some of Churchill's less repeated quotes...

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

This one is commonly cited, but almost always without the surrounding context - he was talking about using tear gas, not a lethal agent. The full quote is:

It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy."

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" - If you note that was made in 1919, when both sides during WWI were using poisoned gas. As you will also note, no British gas
was used offensively [or indeed defensively] during WW2.

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - I agree kick out the Americans and the Australians to make way for the natives. In those days we trumpeted our own superiority with far more vigor. Maybe not entirely without cause I must say.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia [rabies] in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy." - This was an account of the Mahdist War of which Churchill was a part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War] written in 1899. His words were more against the more fundamentalist style of Islam in North Africa at the time, 'he was scathing of the fundamentalist, ultra conservative Mahdiyya form of Islam adopted by the Dervish population of North Africa.' In later years he was a great friend of Islam, indeed he is partly responsible for the London Central Mosque which wouldn't gel as someone un-Islamic would you?

It is absurd that we are capable of witnessing a 40,000 year old system of gender oppression begin to dissolve before our eyes yet still see the abolition of a 200 year old economic system as an unrealistic utopia.